[Politics] The NSC 'up all night' election night *** OFFICIAL MATCH THREAD ***

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



AlbionBro

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2020
1,400
Was having a look through the Sussex stats and drew two conclusions.

1 The RefUK vote was broadly aligned to the national stats (a couple below a couple above) which was surprising to me at least.

2 Tactical voting looks to be less of a thing in more rural areas, with no clear second place being a pattern across the larger mid Sussex constituencies.
That's interesting, but why would there be less tactical voting in rural Britain?
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
56,182
Faversham
Didn't Jews for Labour speak up for Corbyn? There was never any real evidence he was antisemetic - it was something that was used to destroy him. Anti-Israel for sure, but he isn't a racist. I don't think 49% of voters in North Islington (an incredibly diverse area) would vote for him if they believed for one moment he was antisemetic.
Large numbers of Jewish labour supporters did not speak up for Corbyn, and many resigned.

This is a bit nuanced. The problem is Corbyn's naivety. He always condemns Israeli atrocities but when asked directly to condemn anti-Semitism he repeatedly replied with "I condemn all types of prejudice". He lost the whip after writing a totally mad backtracking, after finally condemning anti-Semitism. If he has simply said 'yes' he would have largely been fine.

Except he did bugger all to deal with open anti-Semites in the party. f***ing momentum idiots. So it was easy to make the trope against him stick.

I do not think Corbyn is anti-Semitic. That's why he has plenty of Jewish supporters on the left. However....

I think he is a fool, a poor leader, a great constituency MP, and (now) an irrelevance.

In contrast, Starmer is being crucified by some pro-Palestine ostensibly Labour supporters (now defected) for his failure to use meaningless words to condemn Bibi quickly enough. He used meaningless words to demand that Bibi desist after a few weeks, though. Fat lot of good it has done. I despair that people are making an issue out of this (not you, others), as if the Labour GE win is somehow tainted because of it.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,940
I remember when I was a teenager. I set myself incredibly high standards over what I saw as an ideal relationship with a female. Someone much older that I knew said to me "It's no good saving yourself for Snow White. Anyway the seven dwarves have already 'had' her".

If you imagine that the person you gave your vote to (Liberal? Green?) would deliver all and only your heart's desires, were they ever to be part of a government (they won't), then you have standards so high you are destined to a lifetime of disappointment. Politics is the art of the possible.

You are quite wrong, incidentally, to infer Starmer will say and do anything to get elected. That, frankly, is quite evidently nonsense. The massive unpopularity of his failure to back Hamas by instantly condemning Israel's response to it is one good example. I am being only half facetious here. Why did he not go out of his way to fish for your support if he is politically venal? Do you think he's a fool as well as politically venal? And do you still think that anything a UK leader of the opposition might say about Israel would have the slightest effect on Israel's action?

(seem weird arguing with you - someone else I imagine I share 95% of imperatives).
I appreciate your response and I wish I could remember what he said. It certainly wasn't solely about his support for any side but just something that crossed a red line. But from that moment, at which I envisaged voting Labour, I just couldn't anymore. I think it was a lack of compassion in him rather than a policy ideal.

I spoiled my ballot paper yesterday with an attempt at usual humour (my vote for Jackie Weaver in 2021 made the nation news). I do this every election now because I feel that this country is still governed by headlines and the influence of money.

I used to visit the polling booth chest pumped with a sense of pride and importance as an equal citizen determining the future direction of my nation. I now visit as a token pawn in the games of the media, big business, errant political overlords and Mr Gallup and Mrs Mori.
 


jackalbion

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2011
4,936
I am never 100% correct. Disappointed you feel you need to be over this. I think you are wrong and have tried to explain why. You don't like it. Fair enough.

Maybe I am wrong and maybe leader of the Opposition, Starmer, could have prevented mad Bibi from his evil smiting (and I think it is evil smiting and should stop).

We shall never know.
I am completely lost on what you are talking about to be honest.
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,805
Obviously I have no idea of what Starmers economic plans are yet, but something that may be worthy of consideration. Starmer was an ardent remainer as are much of his now cabinet, he's already made overtures about new arrangements with the EU and many on here have been calling for customs unions or other more integrated solutions again. Are his current economic plans centred on doing this?

Without in any way getting into the rights or wrongs of those arguments for the 10,000th time, Reforms performance in the red wall seats, coming second in many that are strongly brexit leaning and who lent their votes to Johnson in 2019, will certainly give pause for thought.

That will be Labours next big fight, they need those red wall MPs and reforms performance now makes them the oppostion in those brexit leaning seats, which in turn makes any Starmer plans for deeper EU integration domestically policitcally perilous for a 2029 Labour majority.
Hence why he said we are not rejoining the EU. I think any sensible economic policy not fuelled by ideology would want a good trading relationship with our nearest partners so difficult to see what Reform could object to. Their main motivation is to stop immigration, which is a different issue.
 




kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,805
I appreciate your response and I wish I could remember what he said. It certainly wasn't solely about his support for any side but just something that crossed a red line. But from that moment, at which I envisaged voting Labour, I just couldn't anymore. I think it was a lack of compassion in him rather than a policy ideal.

I spoiled my ballot paper yesterday with an attempt at usual humour (my vote for Jackie Weaver in 2021 made the nation news). I do this every election now because I feel that this country is still governed by headlines and the influence of money.

I used to visit the polling booth chest pumped with a sense of pride and importance as an equal citizen determining the future direction of my nation. I now visit as a token pawn in the games of the media, big business, errant political overlords and Mr Gallup and Mrs Mori.
Would you have voted if you lived in North Islington?
 


Berty23

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2012
3,653
If a third of the nation voted for a political party and that party takes two thirds of the seats in parliament that is not democracy or a fair reflection, or representation, of the will of the nation. There is no counter argument that stands against it.

If Albion beat a team 3-2 but the other side were awarded the match 2-1 on the basis that their goals came in two different quarters and Albion's in just one you wouldn't be happy. You would say Albion won fair and square. But that is what you have in our electoral system.
Why is this an issue now but not when Johnson got well under 50% of the vote but got well over 50% of seats?

Why was PR not discussed when Lib Dem’s got 11% of vote and 11 seats but reform get 4 seats from 15% and it is suddenly a huge injustice?
 






BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
18,222
If a third of the nation voted for a political party and that party takes two thirds of the seats in parliament that is not democracy or a fair reflection, or representation, of the will of the nation. There is no counter argument that stands against it.

If Albion beat a team 3-2 but the other side were awarded the match 2-1 on the basis that their goals came in two different quarters and Albion's in just one you wouldn't be happy. You would say Albion won fair and square. But that is what you have in our electoral system.
You cant just transfer those votes into a different system though. All parties set up with the system and rules in place, more importantly so did the voters.

Within a different system with different rules who is to say how many people would have voted differently.

Your analogy is more like Brighton won the game 3-2 and the other team had two goals disallowed for offside. The other team claim Brighton won by default because they decide the offside rule is unfair.
 


Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
16,062
He didn't though, did he ? His own ministers resigned in droves.
Er, yes, he did. He was LITERALLY leader of the party. A complete and utter berk who talked shite the whole time and got massively found out, but he had that job.

Wouldn't surprise me in the last if Farage got the gig at some point in the future.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,940
Why is this an issue now but not when Johnson got well under 50% of the vote but got well over 50% of seats?

Why was PR not discussed when Lib Dem’s got 11% of vote and 11 seats but reform get 4 seats from 15% and it is suddenly a huge injustice?
It has always been an issue for me as I pointed out a while back that no party has won an election with more than 50% of the vote since the 1950s
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
18,222
Fully agree but something Starmer has to remember. This was not a confidence vote for him or Labour. More a protest vote and right wing Conservatives voting Reform which split the vote. Don't like his gloating.
Totally agree, Starmer and Labour really need to step up to the plate and prove themselves worthy of government.
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,805
Large numbers of Jewish labour supporters did not speak up for Corbyn, and many resigned.

This is a bit nuanced. The problem is Corbyn's naivety. He always condemns Israeli atrocities but when asked directly to condemn anti-Semitism he repeatedly replied with "I condemn all types of prejudice". He lost the whip after writing a totally mad backtracking, after finally condemning anti-Semitism. If he has simply said 'yes' he would have largely been fine.

Except he did bugger all to deal with open anti-Semites in the party. f***ing momentum idiots. So it was easy to make the trope against him stick.

I do not think Corbyn is anti-Semitic. That's why he has plenty of Jewish supporters on the left. However....

I think he is a fool, a poor leader, a great constituency MP, and (now) an irrelevance.

In contrast, Starmer is being crucified by some pro-Palestine ostensibly Labour supporters (now defected) for his failure to use meaningless words to condemn Bibi quickly enough. He used meaningless words to demand that Bibi desist after a few weeks, though. Fat lot of good it has done. I despair that people are making an issue out of this (not you, others), as if the Labour GE win is somehow tainted because of it.
I agree he could have done more to root out antisemitism in the party (although again I think this is largely a myth - didn't the official investigation find it was almost non-existent?). He certainly should have been more unequivocal when he was questioned about it, and this did him no favours.
 


Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
16,062
other than the previous astute observations, there's the detail he isn't in the Conservative party. with a "victory" of 4 seats he is unlikely to join them and ideas of mergers are fantasy.
Not at the moment, no.
 




CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,233
Shoreham Beach
Obviously I have no idea of what Starmers economic plans are yet, but something that may be worthy of consideration. Starmer was an ardent remainer as are much of his now cabinet, he's already made overtures about new arrangements with the EU and many on here have been calling for customs unions or other more integrated solutions again. Are his current economic plans centred on doing this?

Without in any way getting into the rights or wrongs of those arguments for the 10,000th time, Reforms performance in the red wall seats, coming second in many that are strongly brexit leaning and who lent their votes to Johnson in 2019, will certainly give pause for thought.

That will be Labours next big fight, they need those red wall MPs and reforms performance now makes them the oppostion in those brexit leaning seats, which in turn makes any Starmer plans for deeper EU integration domestically policitcally perilous for a 2029 Labour majority.
None of this is on the table. There is likely to be some moves to align things such as chemical and vetinary standards, but that is as far as it goes.

Why would Starmer want to drag the country into another war of attrition and to what end? Bear in mind that the EU has zero interest in bringing the UK back into the fold now.

Can you provide some examples of the sorts of policies you feel are lacking? It just feels like something which is oft repeated and I am not clear what anyone thinks is lacking.
 




Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,940






HangletonGull

Well-known member
Apr 10, 2023
2,295
I absolutely love how people feel the need to announce they have placed someone on their ignore list. The ultimate look at me…
Thanks for that but I was actually talking to jack , someone replying to something that wasn’t for them is the ultimate look at me
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top